Lou, please note that my statements apply to normal nature recording
(with relatively low sound pressure levels) only.
I would be curious to hear a real-world nature recording (without
extremely high sound levels of course) that actually benefits from the
24 bit format. Can you provide an example?
Raimund
Lou Judson wrote:
> Not fair, not unbiased, Raimund. 24 is to 12 as 16 is to 8, I think.
> And "imagining" this kind of comparison is like listening to an
> audiophile talk - nothing real there, just imaginary concepts.
>
> *I* can hear the difference, as it is not the noise floor but the
> resolution of the entire range that is improved with 24 bit.
>
> I consider www.digido.com a very high authority on the subject.
> It is far more than the dynamic range...
>
>
> <L>
> On May 23, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
>
> > So, now imagine this conversion had been done from 24 to 16 bit
> > (providing an increase of the final dynamic range of 48dB). I'm afraid
> > that no one could hear the difference=85
>
|